Banning v. Boycotting

John Demetriou - of Boateng and Demetriou fame - has created some consternation in the Libertarian community with this call:

Enough people have had it brought to their attention. The Mail is a sick, nasty, deranged fascist rag and ought to be shunned, ignored, boycotted and publicly reviled.

Personally, I couldn't agree more. I think the Mail should be ignored, boycotted etc. I can't stand the fucking hatefilled rag. However others don't seem to agree, leading to another post on the same site entitled There's nothing unlibertarian about boycotting. Which is, of course, absolutely true.

There is a difference between a ban and a boycott. The former wants to remove the ability of other people to make a decision about what they read/hear/view, whilst the latter offers advice on what someone might read/hear/view. A boycott on The Daily Mail would not restrict anybody's ability to read such a rag (although heaven knows why they would want to), merely show the outrage some feel about that crappy newspaper. A ban removes freedom of choice and closes down freedom of speech; a boycott allows for freedom of choice and is an exercise in freedom of speech.

And that is why I think that both the Jan Moir article and the various responses to it (including Demetriou's) are fine examples of the freedom of speech in action. Moir has the right to say what she wants in this country - even if her opinions are repugnant and odious. And then everyone else has a right to turn round and tell her what a complete fuckwit she truly is.